LexRATILAL JHAVERBHAI PARMAR AND ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2227 : 2024 INSC 801 Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 11000 of 2024 21 October 2024 [Dipankar Datta* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the delay of more than one year in issuing a reasoned order after oral dismissal in open court proceedings as ante-dated by the High Court constitutes a breach of the principles of fairness, propriety, and discipline required to be followed by the judiciary in the administration of justice? Headnotes† Appellant filed a civil application u/Art.227 of the Constitution before the High Court – Dismissed on 01.03.2023 in open Court without saying “reasons would follow” – Appellant pleaded that he was under the impression that the High Court had only reserved the order on 01.03.2023 in the proceeding – Reasoned order was uploaded on High Court website on 30.04.2024 and ante-dated the same to 01.03.2023 – Report of Registrar General of High Court was called which established the Appellant’s allegations as being substantially correct: Held: Breach of norms of ethics – The concerned judge did not even express that “reasons would follow” for dismissal of the petition and hence the concerned judge ceased to retain jurisdiction over the petition and foreclosed assignment of reasons for the dismissal later in time – Even if the concerned judge were to express that reasons for the dismissal would follow, no valid reason to pass detailed reasoned order after lapse of one year rather the correct approach would have been to bring matter on board again, recall the verbal order of dismissal and place before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of High Court to reassign the matter to another bench for fresh consideration. [Paras 12-15, 17] * Author 2228 [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done – Guidelines issued to High Courts for timely pronouncement of judgments – Principles enshrined in Order XX of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 discussed: Held: Practice of High Courts of pronouncing operative parts without timely passing reasoned order/judgment criticised – Reliance placed on observations made in Balaji Baliram Mupade vs State of Maharashtra (2021) 12 SCC 603 that judicial discipline demands promptness in judgment delivery as knowing result without reasons brings aggrieved party to a standstill and violates their right u/Art.21 of the Constitution. [Para 5] Order XX CPC governs “pronouncements of judgments” – As a matter of practice, the learned judge dictates judgment in open court immediately after the hearing is over which, in their assessment, may not consume more than 15/20 minutes however if a judgment, in their assessment, is likely to take more than 20/25 minutes, the learned judge tends to pronounce operative part together with the outcome while expressing “reasons to/would follow” to make optimum use judicial time and hear more cases that are on board – However, the said practice is seemingly turning into a counterproductive exercise and is rather delaying justice delivery. [Para 19] It would be prudent to leave to it to learned Judges to pick any of three options: (i) dictation of the judgment in open court, (ii) reserving the judgment and pronouncing it on a future day, or (iii) pronouncing the operative part and the outcome, i.e., “dismissed” or “allowed” or “disposed of”, while simultaneously expressing that reasons would follow in a detailed final judgment supporting such outcome – In case third option is chosen, it would be in interest of justice to make reasons available in public domain within a time frame work of 2-5 days – In case the suggested timeframe cannot be followed owing to workload, it would be a better option to reserve the judgment. [Para 19] Case Law Cited Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318; Vinod Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University (1988) 1 SCC 80; Tirupati Balaji Developers (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar (2004) 5 SCC 1; Balaji Baliram Mupade v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 12 SCC 603; R. v. Sussex JJ., ex p McCarthy (1924) 1 KB 256 – relied on. [2024] 10 S.C.R. 2229 Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. List of Acts Constitution of India, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. List of Keywords Judicial discipline; Pronouncement of judgments; Delay in reasoned order; Reserving of orders; Workload; Public trust; Judicial integ
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.